DANIEL J. SCHMIDT, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES VAN, SR., AND RILLA VAN, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's order granting a new trial because the court erroneously held that a jury cannot reject uncontroverted expert testimony on causation in favor of lay testimony and evidence.
A jury may reject uncontroverted expert testimony on causation in favor of lay testimony and other evidence, and a trial court commits legal error when it grants a new trial based on the premise that the jury could not do so.
[1] A jury may reject uncontroverted expert testimony regarding causation in favor of lay testimony and circumstantial evidence in a personal injury action.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the jury could not reject uncontroverted expert testimony relative to causation in favor of lay testimony and evidence”
The court identified the trial court's legal error in granting the new trial order.
Schmidt brought a personal injury action against the Vans. A jury returned a defense verdict, but the trial court granted a new trial, finding the ver…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse New Trial Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
The instant case is before this court on the second appeal of an order granting a new trial following a defense verdict in a personal injury action. As we did in the first appeal, we reverse the amended order under review because the trial court’s determination that the jury verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence is premised, at least in part, on the same error of law committed in its original order granting a new trial — specifically, that the jury could not reject uncontroverted expert testimony relative to causation in favor of lay testimony and evidence. *83 Schmidt v. Van, 65 So.3d 1105, 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), quashed on other grounds, Van v. Schmidt, 122 So.3d 243 (Fla.2013). Because we are unable to determine whether the trial court would have granted a new trial but for the error of law, we once again remand the case to the trial court for reconsideration in light of the correct legal principles. Van v. Schmidt, 122 So.3d 243, 261 (Fla.2013). We do so despite Appellant’s urging that we direct the trial court to simply reinstate the jury verdict, because we are “not at liberty to reweigh the evidence presented in the case to decide whether the jury reached a result supported by the evidence.” Id. at 259.
Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.
WETHERELL, RAY, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- VAN v. Schmidt, 122 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 2013)
- Martin Cnty. Conservation Alliance v. Martin Cnty., 122 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 2013)
- Schmidt v. VAN, 65 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)